Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 25 (MP)

Asha v. Abbu Shahna alias Baleshtar

2011-01-06

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
ORDER 1. On behalf of the appellant-claimant, this appeal is preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short ''The Act" being aggrieved by the award dated 31.8.1999 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in MACT No. 127/93 dismissing her claim of compensation filed with respect of the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. 2. The appellant herein filed a claim petition under section 166 of the aforesaid Act contending that in the intervening night of 13.5.1989 to 14.5.1989, the applicant alongwith others were travelling in the offending truck bearing registration No. BRD-5068 alongwith their booked luggage looking after the same. On the way of their destination said vehicle was turned turtle in which some of passengers died while the appellant had sustained some injuries. She was taken to hospital where her MLC report was prepared. On registration of the crime after holding investigation the respondent No. 1-Driver of the Vehicle was charge sheeted for the alleged offence under sections 304, 337, 338 of IPC. It is also pleaded that such accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of aforesaid truck by respondent No.1. With these averments stating the description of the injuries on behalf of appellant the present claim is preferred for the compensation of Rs. 40,800/- and also for the interest on the same. 3. The respondent No. 1 and 2- Driver and registered owner of the registered vehicle proceeded exparte in the Tribunal while in the written statement of respondent No.3-Insurer by denying the averments of the claim petition the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made. 4. After framing the issues opportunity to adduce evidence was extended to the appellant but it appears from the record that no such evidence is adduced by either of the parties in support of the petition as wel1 as in defence. Keeping in view such aspect, on consideration the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant has failed to prove the alleged accident and also the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. Being dissatisfied with such dismissal of the claim, the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal. Keeping in view such aspect, on consideration the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant has failed to prove the alleged accident and also the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. Being dissatisfied with such dismissal of the claim, the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal. 5.The appellant's counsel by referring the pleadings of the claim petition said that the provisions for compensation of the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is enacted for welfare of the person who suffered injuries or losses in the vehicular accident and in view of pleadings of the claim petition, it is apparent that the appellant has sustained the al1eged injuries in the vehicular accident and such alleged offending vehicle was duly ensured with the respondent No.3 and in such premises, even in the absence of examination of any witness on behalf of the appellant in support of the claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have awarded her claim and prayed to award the claim, by allowing this appeal. He fairly conceded that in support of the pleadings of the claim petition, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant as such next friend and guardian of the appellant has also not been examined in the matter. 6. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the counsel for Insurer saying that in veiw of the settled proposition of law, in the lack of evidence mere on the basis of pleadings, no claim or the suit could be awarded or decreed, hence the Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim of the appellant. In such premises, he aruged that impugned award dismissing the claim of the appellant does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, after perusing the record, in the available circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any error or perversity in dismissing the claim of the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that in the lack of pleadings mere on the basis of recorded evidence no claim or suit could be awarded or decreed. Simultaneously in the absence of the evidence mere on the basis of pleadings such claim or suit could not be awarded or decreed by the Court. It is settled proposition of law that in the lack of pleadings mere on the basis of recorded evidence no claim or suit could be awarded or decreed. Simultaneously in the absence of the evidence mere on the basis of pleadings such claim or suit could not be awarded or decreed by the Court. It is undisputed apparent fact in the case at hand that in support of the pleadings of the claim petition no ocular evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant and in its absence, there was no option with the Tribunal except to dismiss the claim petition, hence the Tribunal has not committed any error or perversity in passing the impugned award. In such premises, I have not found any circumstance in the matter to award the claim of the appellant by allowing this appeal. Resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.